Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: the default status, the accepted date formats, the required title/idea constraint, the carousel body-separator convention, and what the returned URL is for. It doesn't flag that repeat calls create duplicates, but idempotentHint=false already conveys that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key constraint, with formatting rules for carousel and date placed after. No filler, though the status enum list and API-reference link add mild bulk.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description explains the essentials (title/idea, status, date, carousel body) and the return URL, but leaves over half the parameters undefined. An agent can call the common path correctly but would guess at platforms, brandId, caption, hook, and cta semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 13 parameters, so the description carries the burden but only documents title, idea, status, scheduledDate, mediaType/body and partially the return value. The status enum and default are useful, but hook, cta, caption, platforms, brandId, category, and funnelStage have no meaning added anywhere. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new content card on the board/calendar') and immediately distinguishes itself from the AI-generation siblings like generate_title/generate_hook with '(no AI)'. An agent can differentiate it from create_content_from_source and bulk_create_contents without inspecting schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear creation condition ('Requires a title or idea') and implicitly routes agents away from AI-generation tools via '(no AI)'. However, it never names siblings such as bulk_create_contents (for batch) or create_content_from_source (from a source), so the choice among creation tools is left partly to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.